Roland Emmerich Talks Foundation

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

Roland Emmerich Talks Foundation

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> Roland Emmerich Talks Foundation

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Roland Emmerich Talks Foundation - 12/2/2010 1:07:18 AM

Empire Admin

Posts: 26334
Joined: 29/6/2005

Post your comments on this article

Post #: 1

- 12/2/2010 1:07:18 AM

Geosolus

Posts: 83
Joined: 10/1/2006
From: Hong Kong

Can someone hand out great big pointy hats with 3D written on them and tell Hollywood to go sit in a corner.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 2

RE: Roland Emmerich Talks Foundation - 12/2/2010 4:58:13 AM

Overmind

Posts: 412
Joined: 16/1/2008
From: Hyperspace

And I who hoped that the Emmerich conection to Foundation was just a silly rumor...

_____________________________

"All suspects are to be considered guilty, period. Or else they wouldn't be suspects would they?" -TROOPS

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 3

Dubious - 12/2/2010 9:20:58 AM

shool

Posts: 9612
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.

I loved the foundation books, but I'm not sure they could make a cohesive movie and still remain faithful. Also Emmerich would certainly not be my choice for the job.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 4

RE: - 12/2/2010 1:21:27 PM

hughjass

Posts: 159
Joined: 3/10/2005
From: Shropshire

quote:

ORIGINAL: Geosolus

Can someone hand out great big pointy hats with 3D written on them and tell Hollywood to go sit in a corner.

I really don't understand the hatred of 3D - I've seen many 3D movies in the last couple of years and I have to admit I love the format.

Yes - it's more expensive but there are always 2D options for people who don't want to pay extra. Cinema now has to find ways to get people in, over watching at home. There aren't many 2D experiences now that lose anything by being seen on Blu-ray and a decent TV/surround setup.

I went to see UP at the cinema, only because it was in 3D - had it only been a 2D release I wouldn't have bothered, and I'd have lost nothing by watching it at home.

(in reply to Geosolus)

Post #: 5

- 12/2/2010 1:25:26 PM

Bluehawk

Posts: 347
Joined: 20/12/2005

Want to see that!

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 6

- 12/2/2010 2:17:22 PM

iainski

Posts: 10
Joined: 23/7/2008

"if you do a movie in 3-D, you can ask for more money and that's the trick"!

Even if this is a joke this proves what his main motivation for making this is. You utter hack bastard.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 7

RE: Roland Emmerich Talks Foundation - 12/2/2010 2:25:56 PM

Kazuya

Posts: 7953
Joined: 23/8/2006
From: The Eighth Dimension c/o Buckaroo Banzai

No way in hell is Emmerich a skilled enough director to handle something like this, sure, he can probably make it look good, but emotional depth and complexity is out of his range. If they really wanna take a crack at Foundation, why not try a trilogy with three different directors, say, Duncan Jones, Richard Kelly and Danny Boyle for the finish.

_____________________________

"Bleed, bastard."

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 8

RE: RE: - 12/2/2010 2:51:28 PM

Deviation

Posts: 26908
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: hughjass

quote:

ORIGINAL: Geosolus

Can someone hand out great big pointy hats with 3D written on them and tell Hollywood to go sit in a corner.

I really don't understand the hatred of 3D - I've seen many 3D movies in the last couple of years and I have to admit I love the format.

Yes - it's more expensive but there are always 2D options for people who don't want to pay extra. Cinema now has to find ways to get people in, over watching at home. There aren't many 2D experiences now that lose anything by being seen on Blu-ray and a decent TV/surround setup.

I went to see UP at the cinema, only because it was in 3D - had it only been a 2D release I wouldn't have bothered, and I'd have lost nothing by watching it at home.

It's a headache inducing, nauseating, money grabbing gimmick that does nothing, and I mean literally nothing to the film. It is pointless, no, it is fucking pointless.

And as for Emmerich for Foundation, its a horrible idea, a fucking horrible idea. I don't hate the guy at all (he is fun, something most blockbuster directors aren't this day, yes you Micheal Bay) but this is certainly not a good project to give him.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to hughjass)

Post #: 9

RE: RE: - 12/2/2010 5:47:18 PM

mattdotwalker

Posts: 8
Joined: 19/6/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation

quote:

ORIGINAL: hughjass

quote:

ORIGINAL: Geosolus

Can someone hand out great big pointy hats with 3D written on them and tell Hollywood to go sit in a corner.

I really don't understand the hatred of 3D - I've seen many 3D movies in the last couple of years and I have to admit I love the format.

Yes - it's more expensive but there are always 2D options for people who don't want to pay extra. Cinema now has to find ways to get people in, over watching at home. There aren't many 2D experiences now that lose anything by being seen on Blu-ray and a decent TV/surround setup.

I went to see UP at the cinema, only because it was in 3D - had it only been a 2D release I wouldn't have bothered, and I'd have lost nothing by watching it at home.

It's a headache inducing, nauseating, money grabbing gimmick that does nothing, and I mean literally nothing to the film. It is pointless, no, it is fucking pointless.

And as for Emmerich for Foundation, its a horrible idea, a fucking horrible idea. I don't hate the guy at all (he is fun, something most blockbuster directors aren't this day, yes you Micheal Bay) but this is certainly not a good project to give him.

3D is not headache inducing and nauseating for everyone, only the vocal minority. I love 3D and have never once suffered any ill effects from it, so do a lot of people I know. It is not suitable for all films and it works better in some films then others. I thought Bolt, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and Avatar were fantastic in 3D, whereas I felt Up and Coraline did not suit the format as effectively in terms of the depth of their visuals. None of these films were improved by being in 3D but it does make it a unique cinematic experience which is genuinely enjoyable for a lot of people. If you don't like 3D then go see it in 2D, it's not difficult. Admittedly 3D has been over-hyped to an extent in recent years and (as with anything that receives a lot of hype - deserving or not) has received a backlash. 3D is not going to just go away and there is no reason for it too. It's not replacing 2D, the two can and will co-exist.

On topic, I've read the first Foundation book and really enjoyed it. Given the nature of the environments and story of the books I can see it being done in the Avatar fashion (which, regardless of it's familiar story, flawlessly integrated live action and motion-capture in a richly realised realistic world). There is no reason the technology cannot be used for non-action-orientated films, which is how I see Foundation (unless the later books ramp up the action). Soon as Roland Emmerich enters the equation though the pieces don't really fit in my mind, not sure about this one. You never know though, maybe he has a hidden talent for mature and complex films that is yet to be tapped, if Joel Schumacher can have Batman and Robin and Falling Down on the same CV anything is possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: iainski

"if you do a movie in 3-D, you can ask for more money and that's the trick"!

Even if this is a joke this proves what his main motivation for making this is. You utter hack bastard.

I think he just means in terms of securing a bigger budget from the studio as a pose to making the audience pay more. Assuming that is the way you read his meaning, that's the way I read your reading of his meaning but my reading of your meaning of the reading of his meaning may be wrong.

(in reply to Deviation)

Post #: 10

RE: RE: - 12/2/2010 6:39:11 PM

Evil_Monkey25

Posts: 94
Joined: 27/10/2007

I read this news at about 1 o clock this morning after having had a few beers... I'd like to share with you my twitter posted moments later:

"Fuck you, Roland Emmerich. Foundation in 3D? Really essential, or just a gimmick? The latter, you blowy-upy twat, the latter... C**t."

Says it all for me... in terms of personal cultural rape, the only thing that could make me angrier is if the X Factor decided to stage a 'Talking Heads Night'...

(in reply to mattdotwalker)

Post #: 11

RE: RE: - 12/2/2010 7:09:51 PM

Rgirvan44

Posts: 18903
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

Making a film of Foundation is like trying to make a movie out of Gibbons The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire - it simply isn't designed for the cinema.

I suppose the obvious route would be to do the Mule story.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

(in reply to Evil_Monkey25)

Post #: 12

RE: RE: - 12/2/2010 8:20:44 PM

Deviation

Posts: 26908
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

quote:

ORIGINAL: mattdotwalker

3D is not headache inducing and nauseating for everyone, only the vocal minority. I love 3D and have never once suffered any ill effects from it, so do a lot of people I know. It is not suitable for all films and it works better in some films then others. I thought Bolt, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and Avatar were fantastic in 3D, whereas I felt Up and Coraline did not suit the format as effectively in terms of the depth of their visuals. None of these films were improved by being in 3D but it does make it a unique cinematic experience which is genuinely enjoyable for a lot of people. If you don't like 3D then go see it in 2D, it's not difficult. Admittedly 3D has been over-hyped to an extent in recent years and (as with anything that receives a lot of hype - deserving or not) has received a backlash. 3D is not going to just go away and there is no reason for it too. It's not replacing 2D, the two can and will co-exist.

True and I can agree with most of things there (though my family went to see it and got out of the 3D sick, so have others I know, if we are going to consider people we know as samples). It still is a device just to make money and we all need is lazy, cheap bastards (a group which Cameron now belongs to) thinking they can make a film cinematic experience just out of making it 3D while forgetting other vital important aspects of the film. We have had filmmakers focusing on CGI and forgetting other aspects of film, all we need now is directors lazying more with 3D and destroying lesser films for not being 3D. And if something like Avatar really represents the future of cinema, a bunch of things that want to be theme rides, then I dread the future of cinema.

quote:

You never know though, maybe he has a hidden talent for mature and complex films that is yet to be tapped,

Doesn't The Patriot disprove that?

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to mattdotwalker)

Post #: 13

If you do a movie in 3-D, you can ask for more money - 14/2/2010 1:33:39 AM

rich

Posts: 4138
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Neo Kobe

LOL what a bastard. Please retire

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 14

Yeah Retire Already!!! - 14/2/2010 8:25:16 AM

Mr.Screen

Posts: 49
Joined: 17/11/2005

Roland you aint done anything worthwhile since The Patriot. Up to and including The Patriot you and Dean delivered some solid popcorn (and that's all they were) blockbusters that were admitedly enjoyable hokum.

Since then it's all gone downhill. Enough already.

Go into retirement and take Uwe Boll with you (btw did that petition for a million signatures ever reach its target?...if so why is Uwe STILL directing he said himself he'd quit if such a petition was shown to him!)

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 15

RE: RE: - 6/3/2011 7:59:20 AM

jimrab

Posts: 8
Joined: 10/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Making a film of Foundation is like trying to make a movie out of Gibbons The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire - it simply isn't designed for the cinema.

I suppose the obvious route would be to do the Mule story.

Surely this was the same argument used about Lord of the Rings.

In saying that I am very sceptical about how successful this might be, i think I am going to have to accept that the universe that Asimov has built over about 15 or so books (Foundation series and Robot series) is unlikely to reproduced properly in Cinema. But this is an old discussion about books to Cinema.

The key for me is that they focus on the characters more than the universe as that is what made Asimov so rich. I really hope they don't fall into the trap of focusing on the Mule story, because in the end the Mule was basically just there to highlight the difference between the masses and an individual making an impact of the course of the future.....

The general spirit of what the Asimov characters were going through though is more akin to the Matrix question I think, are you in control of your own Fate/Destiny/Future, whatever you want to call it; Or maybe as an individual you are, but ultimately you cannot make a difference to the course of the future.... Also further into the Robot series is the question of should humanity be in control or not, or is it just simply incapable of managing itself....

(in reply to Rgirvan44)

Post #: 16

RE: RE: - 6/3/2011 11:58:00 PM

Rgirvan44

Posts: 18903
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimrab

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Making a film of Foundation is like trying to make a movie out of Gibbons The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire - it simply isn't designed for the cinema.

I suppose the obvious route would be to do the Mule story.

Surely this was the same argument used about Lord of the Rings.

In saying that I am very sceptical about how successful this might be, i think I am going to have to accept that the universe that Asimov has built over about 15 or so books (Foundation series and Robot series) is unlikely to reproduced properly in Cinema. But this is an old discussion about books to Cinema.

The key for me is that they focus on the characters more than the universe as that is what made Asimov so rich. I really hope they don't fall into the trap of focusing on the Mule story, because in the end the Mule was basically just there to highlight the difference between the masses and an individual making an impact of the course of the future.....

The general spirit of what the Asimov characters were going through though is more akin to the Matrix question I think, are you in control of your own Fate/Destiny/Future, whatever you want to call it; Or maybe as an individual you are, but ultimately you cannot make a difference to the course of the future.... Also further into the Robot series is the question of should humanity be in control or not, or is it just simply incapable of managing itself....

Lord of the Rings was a single story split into three parts. Foundation is more like Silmarillion, a collection of tales set against a much bigger backdrop.

Empire mentioned in their article that there were space ship battles aplenty...I can't recall any to be honest? The one time it looks like there is going to be a battle the scientiests win out. But I suppose there will be spacebattles now.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

(in reply to jimrab)

Post #: 17

RE: RE: - 7/3/2011 2:51:50 PM

beancounter

Posts: 69
Joined: 30/9/2005

One of the difficulties with turning these books into films is that, particularly in the first book, the characters do not appear for long. This means that they have to make their mark very quickly, so you really need an 'actor's director' to helm this.

There are references to space battles but the action is much more people-based, and is ultimately psychological action rather than blowing-things-up action.

Is there a danger that Emmerich will try to turn this into his version of Star Wars? If so it looks likely to end up like the prequels rather than the originals...

_____________________________

I wish none of this had happened.
So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.

(in reply to Rgirvan44)

Post #: 18

RE: RE: - 7/3/2011 4:26:03 PM

Farron

Posts: 2
Joined: 4/3/2011

Damnit Roland... Stargate was fantastic, but he has been making me very sad since then. I just do not see how Emmerich can pull Foundation off without a total rewrite into Transformers 85: Revenge of the Marketing Department. Just imagine something like Roland Emmerich's Dune, and thinking about that makes me feel dirty.

(in reply to beancounter)

Post #: 19

RE: RE: - 9/3/2011 9:29:41 PM

jimrab

Posts: 8
Joined: 10/5/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

quote:

ORIGINAL: jimrab

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

Making a film of Foundation is like trying to make a movie out of Gibbons The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire - it simply isn't designed for the cinema.

I suppose the obvious route would be to do the Mule story.

Surely this was the same argument used about Lord of the Rings.

In saying that I am very sceptical about how successful this might be, i think I am going to have to accept that the universe that Asimov has built over about 15 or so books (Foundation series and Robot series) is unlikely to reproduced properly in Cinema. But this is an old discussion about books to Cinema.

The key for me is that they focus on the characters more than the universe as that is what made Asimov so rich. I really hope they don't fall into the trap of focusing on the Mule story, because in the end the Mule was basically just there to highlight the difference between the masses and an individual making an impact of the course of the future.....

The general spirit of what the Asimov characters were going through though is more akin to the Matrix question I think, are you in control of your own Fate/Destiny/Future, whatever you want to call it; Or maybe as an individual you are, but ultimately you cannot make a difference to the course of the future.... Also further into the Robot series is the question of should humanity be in control or not, or is it just simply incapable of managing itself....

Lord of the Rings was a single story split into three parts. Foundation is more like Silmarillion, a collection of tales set against a much bigger backdrop.

Empire mentioned in their article that there were space ship battles aplenty...I can't recall any to be honest? The one time it looks like there is going to be a battle the scientiests win out. But I suppose there will be spacebattles now.

Yeah i agree about the space battles, they are referred to frequently as the backdrop to the story, but they are never actually part of the "live action" of the story. I am re-reading the series at the moment and I am convinced that for a movie almost the whole middle book isn't needed that much to keep a movie moving along, but I think the first book on its own could become three movies easily..... as you say it is more a collection of smaller stories or tales, but actually shorter stories do tend to develop better into movies

I can just see though that even with the mention of battles he is taking this completely in the wrong direction and has completely missed the point that asimov seemed to be making, but hey ho it won't be the first time will it......still might enjoy it for what it will end up being......

(in reply to Rgirvan44)

Post #: 20